Bins To Upgrade From B&S Sierra? (1 Viewer)

Just looking for ideas at the moment, with a view to eventually upgrading my Barr & Stroud Sierra 8x42s. For reference, some searching online would seem to indicate that the Chinese OEM of these also make the Hawke Nature Trek 8x42 and Viking Navilux 8x42. This is based on the overall spec as well as the dimensions and details like the specific eyecups, focus wheel and dioptre adjustment wheel. (Basically, same bins with armour, name badge and tripod bush cover changed to the particular brand's requirements).

Things I like about the Sierra...

• Decent build quality and general feel/heft in the hand.
• Waterproof and nitrogen purged.
• Good light transmission and colour balance.
• Decently sharp in the sweet spot.
• 2m close focus and about 1.6 turns from there to infinity.
• Eye relief is about right (I don't wear glasses).
• Tethered caps and rain guard, which fit easily and stay on.

Things I would like...

• Less chromatic aberration with higher contrast subjects.
• Wider field of view.
• Better sharpness towards the edges of the field.

Looking for something in the UK, budget around £200, maybe up to £300 (typical street/online price rather than RRP).

For no particular reason, I'm a bit of a fan of Barr & Stroud, if only because it's an old Scottish name (I'm fully aware that it's a revitalised brand that gets their name stuck on Chinese bins, and I have no problem with that). Consequently, I tend to look at their web site first, and their Series 5 ED range looks interesting: Link to B&S Series 5 ED 8x42

The spec looks pretty tempting. About the only negative I can see is that they're a bit longer than the Sierras by about 18mm, but I think I could live with that if the optics are substantially better. The only review I can find is here and I note that the writer says that they're a bit heavier than the stated weight. Other than that, s/he seems very favourably disposed towards them. Typical selling price seems to be around £200.

Has anyone tried these, or other brands with the same spec (assuming they're the same bins underneath)? Any others worth considering in my budget that have the things I like about the Sierras, and address the things I'd like to be better?

Nomad,

It's quite a while since I last saw the Sierras and I've not seen the rest of the current line-up so I'm of limited help, but I fear it's not going to be easy to find the improvements you are looking for within the £200 limit. The Sierra is pretty much the only phase coated roof on the UK market at around the £100 mark, and the phase coated entry level models are already near to £200 for most other brands. I remember the Sierra's as being pretty sharp but with a rather small sweetspot as you say and both wider and sharp is a big ask at this point.

I haven't checked out the Opticrons at this level for a while so hopefully others can comment on the Explorer WA and Trailfinder 3 etc. The Nikon Prostaff 7 I feel is a rather good basic binocular for sensible money but the overall FOV is fairly modest and it is rather longer than some (which probably helps with CA control and sharpness). From time to time we see the Vanguard Spirit ED close to the £200 mark. I know some have complained of high CA in some samples but I've found it well controlled in the ones I've tried and overall performance pretty good for the price. For a bit more money the Vanguard Endeavour ED offers a wider view and just a bit better overall performance in my opinion. The price does fluctuate a lot. At around £250 the Opticron Natura is a nice little Japanese made binocular with a 30 year warranty, but the view is narrow and close focus nothing special. Announced but not seen yet is the new Hawke Frontier ED x42 single hinge model at about £250. I looked at the x32 version at the start of the year. It did have a couple of quirks but still pretty good for the likely retail price so I'd suggest it's big brother is worth a look. If it's performance matches the existing dual hinge model it would be a bit of a bargain. The Celestron Trailseeker I rather liked as well.

It probably won't make your shortlist but the Opticron HRWP porro prism binocuar is very good indeed.

While it's clear many brands share manufacturers, and no doubt, component parts, I suspect more often than not there are differences in specification between similar looking models. I know of two that obviously shared the same housing but the difference in colour, contrast and sharpness of the view was like night and day.

Good luck,

David

I would echo much of what David writes above. If you want to stick with Barr and Stroud I would suggest the Savannah 8x42 which can be had for £104. I've tried the 8x56, 10x56 and 12x56 and they are all excellent for the money. I can only assume the 8x42 is equally as good value for money. They have a large FOV at 143m and 2m close focus. I think they look nice too and have a rather large sweet spot. I haven't tried the Series 5 but it looks nice.

The Opticron Explorer WA is a good binocular but the central hinge can be loose. It is definitely one to try first. The Natura is nice but as David said, it has an extremely narrow FOV.

A Forest Optics Forester ED 8x42 can be found on Ebay for £250. It has a wide FOV and ED glass and dielectric coatings. The one I tried was very good. However, the eye relief is stated as 18mm but I found it very tight with glasses on.

Thanks for the suggestions so far.

I've been pondering on field of view - how important is it when the size of the sweet spot is taken into consideration? In other words, if the sweet spot extends closer to the edges of the field, is a wider FoV so important? I should mention that I don't find the Sierra's 129m especially restrictive - it's fine most of the time. I can see a bird in flight, lift the bins to my eyes and get it in view 8 or 9 times out of 10. Tracking flying birds is generally fine as well (struggle to keep up with swifts).

Looking at the numbers for 8x at 129 and 142m, the differences don't really seem to be all that much. An extra 10% in width and FoV (13m and 0.7°), and 8% (4.6°) in the apparent FoV. Speaking as an occasional photographer with a liking for wide lenses, these are somewhat small differences - the apparent FoVs roughly equate to 37 and 41mm lenses on 35mm film, which is bordering on neither here nor there in practical terms (I happily switch between 35 and 40mm lenses depending on the camera).

If I'm not especially struggling with the current 129m, is it potentially a mistake to get too hung up on FoV? If I were to order the improvements I listed, I'd like less likelihood of chromatic aberration followed by a larger sweet spot. If it's a case of choosing amongst optical compromises, would I be better off looking at bins that offer better CA and sharpness across the field in lieu of a wider FoV?

I also have a handling question with regard to hinges: are open hinges better than the single hinge types? My IPD is 60mm, so while I get the feeling that open hinges would be better (more natural finger/hand position - better stability?), maybe the barrels would be too close together to really take advantage of the open hinge arrangement.

I've been reading about the Vanguard Endeavour ED II, and that led me to wonder whether open hinge might be better (and Carmarthen Cameras are offering them at £400 with £50 cashback). If these nail the optical quality, and if the large sweet spot trumps the wider FoV of the others, then they are becoming tempting.

I think, at the moment, I'm in two minds about which approach to take. The Endeavour ED II seems to offer a more guaranteed improvement in optical quality compared to the relative unknowns of the cheaper well-specced Chinese bins. Part of me wants to take a punt on the cheaper ones, and part of me wants to spend a bit more and get a known-good quantity that I'm unlikely to want to upgrade any time soon.

Good questions.

Nomad,

On the whole I'm not particularly keen on dual hinge designs, and I think you are right, they seem better suited to wider IPDs. At my 62mm setting, there is insufficient space between the barrels for fingers on the Endeavour EDII and I seem to be constantly be moving them around a comfortable hold. Really just a minor gripe in practice, but move them out to 70mm plus and everything's great.

My various binoculars range from 50* to 65* AFOV. If you pick them up in turn the differences are are pretty obvious and yes, a wide FOV would be on my wish list, but when actually birding I seem to be pretty much blind to those difference in most situations because I'm concentrating on the subject in the centre of the view and I'm indifferent to which I have in the hand.

A good flat field design like the Endeavour EDII is pretty much sharp edge to edge at a given focal distance, whereas others I own have varying degrees of field curvature, but never the less will produce a sharp focus at the edge at a closer distance. This can give the illusion of a greater depth of field which I definitely welcome in certain situations. I personally don't feel one is better than the other, just make a choice depending on the expected environment on the day. Of course some binoculars are just blurred at the edges but that's totally different.

You will find quite a lot of discussion on the forum about the rolling-ball phenomenon. True flat field designs inevitably have a magnification distortion which some find quite disturbing. What I've personally found more problematic is a more complex ripples of magnification distortion which can sometimes be seen in wide field designs as well. It seems from forum comments that only a minority are sensitive to these distortions, but if the view appears to wobble around while panning, that's probably the reason.

If I recall correctly, the Sierra has not only a high degree of field curvature but also astigmatism (a type of blur) at the edges. I think all the models I mentioned have a greater usable field of view. Increasing the budget further does introduce other options. I rather like the Opticron Countryman HD at just over £300. It might have field curvature and an average FOV but it's definitely a joy to use. I mentioned the Hawke Frontier ED before but both the dual hinge and cheaper single hinge Hawke Sapphire EDs are better still. I could mention several more around the £400 mark. What I can't say is whether any of these would work better for you than the £250 Vanguard Endeavour ED or indeed if the flat view of the EDII is worth stretching the budget or would simply make you nauseous. Really the only answer is find somewhere to try a few if you can.

David

I agree with David's post entirely. It's all about personal preference. For me, like 126m FOV as a minimum for an 8x. I also like a bit of field curvature in lower magnifications. My Viking Mad 6.5x32 is a real favourite.

A recent relative gem at a low price point is the Celestron Trailseeker 8x42. It's got a fairly large sweet spot, good colour and contrast and a very wide field of view. It can be bought for £179 and for thay price it really is excellent.

Thanks once again, folks.

I have ordered a pair of the Vanguard Endeavour ED II 8x42. (It would seem that I don't spend long looking for ideas, and "eventually" doesn't last long...)

The way I see it, anything around this level should be a significant upgrade to the Sierras. With my present level of experience, it could take me some time to narrow down precisely which of the 'better' bins to go for (and I may not even be able to tell all that easily until I've spent some time using something). There is also the problem of being able to try out various binoculars - there doesn't seem to be much in the way of specialist shops in my area, and all of them seem to have stock that's restricted to a few brands. That, coupled with the veritable option paralysis that the relatively inexperienced binocular user has to contend with, leaves me of the view that sometimes it's better to just make the best judgement call you can and pick something. The ED IIs seem to be very well regarded. Whether the rolling ball thing will be an issue for me, I can't say until I actually use them (and nobody local seems to stock them). In any case, my main interest is an improvement on the static view.

For anyone else interested, I got them from Carmarthen Cameras, who are offering a £50 discount backed by Vanguard. (Need to phone them to do the deal.)

They should arrive on Thursday.

The ED IIs have arrived, and I've been spending a bit of time comparing them with the Sierras, looking at things out the window. Here are my initial impressions...

In the centre of the field, I was surprised to find that the Sierras resolve fine detail more clearly. There's an electricity substation about 40m away and the small writing on the warning signs was consistently clearer with the Sierras. It's not a big difference, but it is certainly noticeable. With textures (like harling on a wall about 50m away), I got the impression that the ED II did better.

The ED IIs seem to have more depth of field. For objects at around 80 to 200m, it seemed as though tiny movements of the focus wheel made less difference in sharpness when moving between nearer and further objects. With the Sierras, I needed to adjust the focus more to get objects at a different distance that bit sharper. Maybe the aforementioned harling (which was at an oblique angle) looked better in the ED IIs because of the depth of field - less need to hunt compared to the Sierras?

In low light (now darker after writing most of this), I'd say there is no real difference between the two bins - they seem to be pretty equal in terms of light amplifying power.

With regard to the other optical qualities, the ED II seems to be better. When apparent, there was very little evidence of CA in the centre of the field, although there was some at times towards the edges. For the same subject and lighting, the Sierras had quite noticeable CA in the centre. (They don't always - they are usually pretty good for this, but it can pop up when things are contrasty, and it's rather distracting when it does.)

The ED II also had better contrast and maybe a little better colour saturation. I note that some have said that they are slightly warm, so the latter could be emphasis of certain colours, but the general impression was that the picture was a little richer compared to the Sierras - I've sometimes felt the latter look a little washed out in daylight (although less so when looking at things that are close).

Looking at vertical and horizontal lines on buildings, the ED IIs are superb with regard to distortion - maybe a tiny bit of pincushion at the extreme edges of the field, but otherwise they're spot on. (Speaking as a photographer with a strong liking for rectilinear wide angle lenses, I'm impressed with this.) The Sierras start to introduce pincushion at about 50% from the centre, and it comes in quite quickly, after which it doesn't get too much worse. Panning around a little, I noticed the rolling ball effect, but it didn't bother me. I've notice something similar with the Sierras with the pincushion distortion - lines of trees, for example, wobble at the edges of the field when panning (the inverse of rolling ball, I guess).

The sharpness across the field in the ED IIs was quite evident as well in the short time I looked at that. The Sierras need to be refocused to sharpen the edges, and still aren't as sharp compared to the centre.

The FoV was effectively the same - I didn't notice any difference when swapping between the two bins. Even when looking for it, it was hard to hold them still long enough to get an idea of how much difference there actually is.

With regard to build quality and general handling, the ED IIs are definitely a cut above the Sierras. They feel noticeably heavier (or, rather, the Sierras feel lighter after using the ED IIs). Weights are 800g for the ED IIs and 700g for the Sierras. The ED IIs have a general feeling of being better put together - more solid feeling, the focus wheel has a bit more drag (maybe a touch light on the Sierras), and the dioptre adjustment feels very nice - positive click to lock/unlock, and certainly easier to turn than the Sierra's non-locking version.

I think I like the open hinge design of the ED IIs. They feel less muckle and are much easier to hold securely with one hand. The fast focus of the ED II will take some getting used to. I quite liked the rapid change in focus distance, but I think I need some time to get used to the fine adjustment once in the zone.

The ED II eyecups turn easily and seem to stay in position okay, while the Sierra cups differ from each other - the left one turns fine, but the right is a tad stiff (which a recent application of some Teflon grease to the helicoids didn't cure). Both are fine for adjusting IPD - nice amount of drag, and no tendency to move out of adjustment. The objectives on the ED IIs are more recessed than on the Sierra, which I think is a good thing, and the caps are a fairly soft rubber and feel better than the soft plastic (but stiffer) ones on the Sierras. In practice, the caps on both seem fine - they stay on and are easy enough to fit and remove, but I think I prefer the rubber ones.

The ED II case is better made and has better padding. It feels like there is some fairly firm closed-cell foam inside, and it's thicker than whatever is inside the Sierra case. The zip closure is also better than the Velcro flap on the Sierra case (which is also starting to lose its grip).

The strap arrangement on the ED IIs is naff. I fail to see the logic in either having the strap on the case or on the bins, and I wouldn't trust the plastic clips as far as I could throw them. As far as I'm concerned, that's an unnecessary point of potential failure for the sake of some bizarre strap-swapping idea that makes no sense. My daily use of bins is as follows - get bins, in case, out of manbag and sling them over my head cross-body style. Go to lunch at works canteen, then head out to the nearby golf course. Bins come out as I'm walking down the car park and go round the neck, case stays slung across the body, hanging out of the way at the small of my back. With the ED IIs, where am I supposed put the case? Am I expected to do this stupid strap swapping nonsense while walking down the car park, all the while having no fear that my pricey bins aren't going to get dropped? It's a stupid idea, and Vanguard need to ditch it. I can't comment on the Vanguard strap because it hasn't been taken out of the wrapper and never will be.

Overall, the ED IIs seem to be very good, although I have to say that I'm a bit nonplussed with the seemingly better sharpness in the centre on the Sierras. I really didn't expect that and find myself wondering if there is something wrong with the ED IIs, or maybe I got a particularly well made/ground/set up pair of Sierras. The fast focus is certainly different from what I'm used to, and I'm looking forward to trying that in the field, as well as seeing how the apparent difference in sharpness fares when looking at birds rather than something that's one step short of a test chart. In all other optical and build quality respects, the ED IIs are better than the Sierras, but I'd have to say that some of the differences are more subtle than I was expecting (like the contrast and saturation - better, but not hugely so).

If anything, I think I'm more surprised at how good the Sierras are, especially for the money (I paid £74 just over 2 years ago). They certainly have their shortcomings (pincushion and soft outer field, especially), but are very much cheap and cheerful, with a strong emphasis on the latter. For something that's worked out to £3 a month if I stop using them now, they've been a bargain and have certainly helped me to take more of an interest in watching birds (even if I don't see myself as a serious birder).

It has also been interesting to see how little difference there is between those and what might be considered amongst the best of the Chinese made bins. Unless there is something amiss with the sharpness aspect, it's mostly quite subtle rather than night and day. Big difference with the CA and pincushion, but the contrast and saturation less so. The usefulness or otherwise of the sharpness across the field will no doubt become apparent when I use them for watching actual birds, as will the much faster focus.

Nomad,

Appreciate you posting your findings.

The sharpness difference you noted is curious. There are a number of possible explanations, and off hand, I couldn't say which applies in this case. It seems a paradox, but low resolution binoculars can appear sharper than high resolution ones in some circumstances. I will PM some some things to explore to try to get to the bottom of it tomorrow.

Cheers,

David

I recommend that you try setting the diopter adjustment several more times to make sure it's absolutely optimal, as that will affect resolution significantly.

Also you should test in bright conditions. Also ideally the binoculars would be mounted to a tripod or other stable platform to eliminate effects from weight, weight distribution, ergonomics differences. And ideally your testing would be blinded, with multiple viewers.

But I wouldn't be surprised that in an optical design, at a specific price point, center resolution and field flatness are at odds with each other.

typo said:

Nomad,

On the whole I'm not particularly keen on dual hinge designs, and I think you are right, they seem better suited to wider IPDs. At my 62mm setting, there is insufficient space between the barrels for fingers on the Endeavour EDII and I seem to be constantly be moving them around a comfortable hold. Really just a minor gripe in practice, but move them out to 70mm plus and everything's great.

My various binoculars range from 50* to 65* AFOV. If you pick them up in turn the differences are are pretty obvious and yes, a wide FOV would be on my wish list, but when actually birding I seem to be pretty much blind to those difference in most situations because I'm concentrating on the subject in the centre of the view and I'm indifferent to which I have in the hand.

A good flat field design like the Endeavour EDII is pretty much sharp edge to edge at a given focal distance, whereas others I own have varying degrees of field curvature, but never the less will produce a sharp focus at the edge at a closer distance. This can give the illusion of a greater depth of field which I definitely welcome in certain situations. I personally don't feel one is better than the other, just make a choice depending on the expected environment on the day. Of course some binoculars are just blurred at the edges but that's totally different.

You will find quite a lot of discussion on the forum about the rolling-ball phenomenon. True flat field designs inevitably have a magnification distortion which some find quite disturbing. What I've personally found more problematic is a more complex ripples of magnification distortion which can sometimes be seen in wide field designs as well. It seems from forum comments that only a minority are sensitive to these distortions, but if the view appears to wobble around while panning, that's probably the reason.

If I recall correctly, the Sierra has not only a high degree of field curvature but also astigmatism (a type of blur) at the edges. I think all the models I mentioned have a greater usable field of view. Increasing the budget further does introduce other options. I rather like the Opticron Countryman HD at just over £300. It might have field curvature and an average FOV but it's definitely a joy to use. I mentioned the Hawke Frontier ED before but both the dual hinge and cheaper single hinge Hawke Sapphire EDs are better still. I could mention several more around the £400 mark. What I can't say is whether any of these would work better for you than the £250 Vanguard Endeavour ED or indeed if the flat view of the EDII is worth stretching the budget or would simply make you nauseous. Really the only answer is find somewhere to try a few if you can.

David

Click to expand...

Totally agree with Davids post I have had the Vanguard Endeavour EDI and now have the Endeavour EDII but I nest record for the BTO so were getting knocked about a bit, twist up eyecup got pulled of getting caught on a branch so have decided to go for the Barr and Stroud Sierra. My first bins were Barr and Stroud Skyline and was over the moon for £50 odd quid. Try before you buy but either of the Vanguards are a great choices and if you could stretch to the EDII, you will be more than impressed.

Damian

Just a quick update. I tried setting the ED II dioptre on a tripod, and that seems to have made a difference. (When I last set the B&S, I was sitting on a bench with my arms supported.) At present, hand-held again, it's very hard to separate the two.

I also had another look at the stiff eyecup on the Sierras. I had lubricated the helicoids to no avail, and just noticed that the inside surfaces of the metal eyecup sleeve, between the three helicoid grooves, had some signs of abrasion (lighter colouring than the black finish, and following the same path as the helicoids). A tiny touch of Teflon grease on these areas has cured it - nice and slick and clicky again.

Going to pop out with the ED IIs for a play this evening...

The ED IIs now get the thumbs up. Went out for a little while yesterday evening, and was up at RSPB Loch Leven this afternoon for a good couple of hours. Sharpness seems to be as good as I can perceive. All other aspects of the image are a definite improvement on the Sierras. The overall impression is of a higher fidelity picture. Still got the occasional bit of CA in the outer field, and when it happened at all in the centre (only once or twice), it was very slight (very thin fringing) and not distracting. The lack of distortion and the sharpness across the field seems to make a difference to the viewing experience, even though I don't actually spend my time looking much outside of the general central area - I got the impression it was like watching a wildlife programme filmed in high definition.

I'm settling in quickly with the fast focus - very easy to get into the zone with little finger motion, and the fine adjustment is turning out to be no problem.

While at the RSPB visitor centre, I bought one of their own-brand neoprene straps (with no silly clips) and fitted that, and it's as good as it needs to be. I did use the Vanguard strap for the case, but I suspect it will get binned and a plain webbing one fitted instead. (Plain webbing can slide around under the jacket if you want to change where the case hangs, and is less bulky under a rucksack strap.)

Aye, very nice bins that I can't see me wanting to change for a good long while. My thanks to all for the input, and especially to David for the PMs regarding sharpness.

Went up to RSPB Loch Level yesterday because they're having a binocular & scope weekend. I had a few minutes with the Leica Ultravid 8x42 and Swarovski EL 8.5x42, and compared them the Endeavour ED IIs.

Of the three, I think I like the Leicas the most. The Swarovskis seemed to have a bit of rolling ball, but I didn't notice that in the Leicas. I also felt that the Leicas gave an overall impression of being slightly crisper - not sharper as such, but maybe slightly better contrast.

The most interesting, and perhaps surprising, thing was how small the differences were between the alphas and the ED IIs. If money was no object, I would choose the Ultravids. In the real world, it's very hard to justify the extra £1200+ for the improvements offered by the alphas. For me, four times the price for what almost amounts to splitting hairs on optical quality puts the alphas firmly into the nice to have category.

Nomad Z said:

Went up to RSPB Loch Level yesterday because they're having a binocular & scope weekend. I had a few minutes with the Leica Ultravid 8x42 and Swarovski EL 8.5x42, and compared them the Endeavour ED IIs.

Of the three, I think I like the Leicas the most. The Swarovskis seemed to have a bit of rolling ball, but I didn't notice that in the Leicas. I also felt that the Leicas gave an overall impression of being slightly crisper - not sharper as such, but maybe slightly better contrast.

The most interesting, and perhaps surprising, thing was how small the differences were between the alphas and the ED IIs. If money was no object, I would choose the Ultravids. In the real world, it's very hard to justify the extra £1200+ for the improvements offered by the alphas. For me, four times the price for what almost amounts to splitting hairs on optical quality puts the alphas firmly into the nice to have category.

Click to expand...

That's exactly the same conclusion i reached, and again with the Leica Ultravids. Many on BF will point to better after-sales offered by the alphas, but i'm not sure that argument holds up either with some of the warranties issued by other companies (which i believe are better in the US than in Europe however). The gap is certainly not a £1200 gap, anyway.

Does the Endeavour ED II have a flatter field than the Ultravid?

I don't know if i could answer on the comparison, as i own the EDII but have only tried the Ultravid (HD plus), and was looking at clarity, colour rendition etc. and - as usual - concentrating on speed and ease of use. However, i would say that the EDII is a really good example of flat field optics, with very little in the way of associated distortions or RB, as far as i can tell (not being particularly susceptible to it). Some time ago i compared the EDII 8x42 to the EDI 8.5x45 and from what i remember of that afternoon, the flat field of the EDII, together with edge-to-edge clarity and increase in depth of field (cf EDI) were the highlights. I thought then (and still do) that these are remarkable bins for the money. Once you're tuned to the fast focus, there's not much you're gonna miss with these.